About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
top jobs in three administrations most recently in the obama administration but also for the former presidents bush, one and two, i think. >> bush one, reagan -- yes. >> all the way back. >> you come with bonified credentials in foreign policy. let's talk about what this speech really indicated on syria. it seemed to me what mitt romney presented today was not to directly arm some. he was talking about working through allies. >> if you read the speech he'll work with allies to see that arms are provided. it's a passive voice. what i heard them saying to you is we'll be more active in terms of trying to make that happen. i think the longer we wait to do it, the harder it will be. >> you would go farther than mitt romney. >> i would. >> the administration is worried about the weapons getting into the wrong hands. >> it is a legitimate concern. what you have to do is focus heavily on identifying those you are prepared to work with, create tests for them. provide the weapons that would create less concern for us like anti-tank weapons as opposed to anti-air weapons. see how they operate
, the bush administration and obama administration, we always knew that u.s. consulates and embassies are absolutely prime targets for terrorist attacks. we've seen this before in the bush administration, we had attacks in the consulate in karachi and pakistan in saudi arabia, in jeddah, in syria, and elsewhere throughout the region. so this is not entirely new. we know the threat is there. i think what we've seen in libya is, obviously a government which still had a real challenge in using its own forces to protect the limited u.s. presence and very legitimate questions now about the degree of security that was there at the embassy. from what i understand, there still was no long specific actual intelligence about this attack, but it's quite clear there was a threat in libya generally, a specific threat that we'd seen over the previous couple months in benghazi, and now obviously the congress and the executive branch have to look hard and see should that security have been heightened, but as you noted, the diplomatic security within the state department has long been a target of budg
this administration. we don't know the answer to that. look, president bush, president obama, and a president romney would all say we will not allow iran to acquire the nuclear know how basically to produce weapons. biden was saying clearly, look, it's not as bad as it seems, they don't have a weapon to mount this on. >> one point ryan seemed to agree with that saying we have more time. >> it's not clear to me where the real difference is in the policy. >> yep. >> rhetoric is fine. one of the challenge for republicans right now post the bush era if you're saying that basically the democrats are soft on foreign policy, what is the difference between that and the projection of american power under the bush era where you invaded other countries and the like? is there some middle ground. if there is i don't know what that is. we're in the rhetorical stage after neo conservative sounding ticket -- >> and biden made -- >> being tougher is not a policy. >> biden made a virtue out of that for his base saying would you go to a war? would you start another war? and that is very resonate with democratic base a
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)